Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-05-02

We. Baldwin, Justice McKinstry, ahes stating
that this section of the Constitution had been
judiciously considered in the aforementioned
case and reaffirming the same doctrine, said
" do not propose 10 fortify the reasoning OF
Justice Crockett in San Francisco VS.. Spring
Valley Water Works. In itself eminently salts.
factory, it accords with established canons OF
constitutional and statutory construction. My
above intimated, the construction of the pro-
vision of the Constitution has been settled by the
highest tribunal of the State"
As the result of the examination of
, these authorities, Judge Levy says;
This point having been finally settled by the
highest tribunal of the State, the remaining
question is, Does the legislation in question
apply to all railroad corporations organized I'M
der the general law? If so, then the reserva-
lions of the power to alter or amend might be
invoked to sustain it, but if, on the contrary, it
only affects portion of said railroad corpor-
ations, then it is unconstitutional and void.
The general law for the incorporation of rail-
road companies. under both the old and the new
| Constitutions, is the same whether the object
was to construct in one or all the counties ofthe
State. All had the same powers and duties and
were subject to the same obligations. There are
! in this State nearly, If not quite, as many rail-
roads operated only in one county, as there are
| operated in more than one county. The pro-
visions of the Political Code before referred to,
does not impose upon the railroads operated IN
one county the duties or obligations imposed
upon those operated in more than one county.
The class OF three county railroads in Los
Angeles; the class of three county railroads
| in Alameda, the three county railroads in
I Contra Costa, the two county railroads in
Santa Cruz; the two county railroads in
/ Humboldt, the one county railroad in Colusa,
and the one county railroad in Tulare
are not compelled to go to the State Capitol and
there pay their State and county taxes to the
State Treasurer after obtaining an order from the
Controller for the Stare Treasurer to receive the
/ same; and should the tax on their railroads be-
| come delinquent, they are not subject TO a suit
and attachment. and Costs of suit and counsel
fees, until their road, the property assessed, and
| upon which the tax has been levied, have been
advertised and offered for sale, and no bidders
are found to take the same. The tax upon their
property can only be made out of the identical
property assessed, provided any bidder shall
| take 1t and pay the tax, percentage and costs,
months in which to redeem. Under the decis-
| ions before cited, the reservation of the power
to alter, amend or repeal, so far from sustaining
| the section of the Political Code in question,
they determined that the said sections are I'm.
| constitutional.
The question whether Sections 3668
1869 and 1910 of the Political Code are
void under Section l of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitu.
ton, as denying the railroads the equal
protection of the laws, Judge Levy does
not deem necessary TO decide, as it has
been passed upon by the United States
Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara
county VS.. the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company, reported IN lis United States
Reports, page 393.